True stabilized strains. A lost art?

[Sam_Skunkman]

My real comment was about you hemp breeding, I see now you cleared that up. the reference about loosing 5% of the genes is from The IHA preservation project. I might have got the numbers slightly off, if I remember the original paper 1-5% is lost depending on the population.
We have set a minimum limit of 1,000 plants in each population. This should ensure 99% preservation of the gene pool of monoecious varieties, and 95% of the gene pool of dioecious varieties. A population size of 2,000 for dioecious accessions is required to ensure that 99% of the gene pool will be preserved (Crossa 1993).
-SamS

I obviously wasnt as clear as needed to be as MustaFunk and Sam picked apart my post with a fine tooth comb.. My comments are mine alone and my personal view of what the market is like and how i look at breeding. Take it for what it is.. if you view them right or wrong.

To clarify:
My view of a True Breeding Stable strain is any strain that has been bred to successfully lock down traits within the population. And those traits will breed true with each generation.




SGS

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Originally Posted by SGS [URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/images/buttons/viewpost.gif]View Image[/URL]
As a breeder I will share my view on this topic. There are a few reasons making True Stabilized.. (True Breeding) Lines isnt practiced so much today, as in the past.

Never was for Cannabis.

I disagree for the single reason that it was a lot easier to find strains that where bred that had much more traits locked down and true breeding then it is today. Sam you know the mentally was much more favorable for growers to get uniform plants from the seed stock they were buying years ago...in turn many breeders accommodated...

Finding plants that accurately fit the description from the breeder today is much less likely then it used to be. Why would a breeder require you to plant more then a single pack to get what they said you would be getting in a pack? If this is the case then the amount of seeds sold in each pack should be increased just to accomedate for the variation the consumer will get to ensure they get at least 1 plant that accurately matches the breeders description. Unless stated by the breeder to expect high variation.


The general market for genetics has been shifted to "The Grass is Greener on the Other Side" so to speak... meaning people are constantly looking for then next unique plant which in turn usually pop up in unstable lines and people feel lucky when they find them. This is also why so many new crosses are made ( pollen chucking ) with the most up to date Elite unique plant on the market hoping for an even better offspring. So stability isnt really on the minds of people as much as it used to be. Mostly because these unique plants dont need to be stable as Cloning and sharing cuts has become a lot more common with laws changing around the world.

Stability is much more of a concern when dealing with seed production... It still holds true.. who wants to grow out a pack of seeds and not get a single plant that represents the description of a strain the breeder has given.. it happens a lot these days and Im still baffled why people continue to purchase such seed as they are taking such a large gamble on actually getting what they paid for. Just another move in the mentality of the market and whats acceptable these days.

I would like to test your varieties for stability and true breeding, both by growing and sending them to a cytology lab that can test the homozygosity vs heterozygous, all cannabis is heterozygous.
I did test my Skunk #1 and was told it was the most homozygous Cannabis variety ever tested much more then any of the registered Hemp varieties that were tested, they tested maybe 100 different ones. I did not try and make it true breeding through breeding over and over, I grew out about 30 NLC X WLD varieties I made or was given and pollinated them to only themselves, then I grew out the F1 and made f2s and grew them out and picked the one that segregated the least, that was Skunk #1, I only made and sold true breeding varieties, until I moved to the Netherlands and got tired of all the knock offs. So I switched over to mostly hybrids.
The bottom line is it is not so easy to pick two varieties, make a hybrid and then stabilize it into a true breeding variety, I am not sure I have ever seen any. Skunk #1 is close but I did it by selection not by force of will, why not go with the flow?
-SamS

yes i would be happy to have you run some of them and do your own testing but in turn just like you said.. you got sick of the knock offs.. Below In my original post I mentioned the same thing about people taking true breeding lines and claiming the work for themselves. The reason why breeders started to make hybrids only to protect their work...just like yourself.. so why would i send you my true breeding lines? and take the risk of them being out there?

Another issue of why breeders dont make true breeding strains is the fact that they are SOOO easy to rip off by other seed producers and be sold as their own work. Blatantly taking all the hard work that the original breeder put in and reaping the rewards for themselves... this was a big issue for a long time and people began to frown upon people for doing so ( HACKS!View Image ). So in response most larger breeders just started releasing F1s and keeping all True Stabilized Breeding stock for themselves.. this helps protect the work they have put in as no one can really recreate the exact same F1 offspring even if they use the same True Breeding Parent strains as they will be making different selection of P1 plants for the F1 offspring. Another method for protecting True Breeding strains has been releasing them only in FEM seed lines.. generally eliminating all males from the population to keep others from reproducing seeds.

( Why does it take so many plants? if you grow out a group of seeds and find plants with matching traits breed them and the traits breed true.. why do you need 100s of plants to choose from if you find what you are looking for in a smaller group? Growing out hundreds of plants of the same line is really only needed when trying to lock down a recessive trait that is rare.. hense the reason needing so many plants to find it in both parents you choose to make the next generation. )

Do you really understand breeding Cannabis? Have you ever bred anything else besides Cannabis? The larger the number the better chances of success, and the bigger populations your selections can be made from. Cannabis needs it, it is a wind pollinated out crosser, you need to grow 2,000 plants to open pollinate just to ensure that the gene loss is prevented do you understand this? With Cannabis 2,000 plants will still lose upto 5% of their genes each year reproduced.

Ummm I think so? then again i could be wrong... like i said these i my views i dont claim to be an expert.. I did claim i was a breeder as I do breed cannabis. I do open pollination within the population of selected plants showing the traits i want to lock down ,, if the group is 25 plants or 100 it will still give me a large enough gene pool to pick from for the next generation to find the trait again and continue to work to lock it down and make it true breeding for that trait or multiple traits if I can at the same time. Of course a larger population would give me a better chance to find a plant for better selection but if i can find something im happy with then why is it needed?? also backcrossing can be used but only to reinforce a trait i want locked down but it cant be used to stabilize. but this option isnt required.. and i like to keep things more natural when making a stable line for the traits im trying to lock down. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] just like mother nature[/FONT] but in isolated selective groups.

Im curious where you got those numbers from sorry if i dont know... about the amount of plants needed and loose 5% of genes... [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]so please explain ,, what would happen to a line of cannabis that was able to grow naturally on its own without human help.. but it was isolated with small numbers ...[/FONT]an isolated population of cannabis plants would inbreed and inbreed ..what would happen to them over the years? would they become more stable to the point of extremely homozygous or would they remain heterozygous? if they remain heterozygous .. where do stable true breeding Landrace strains with very little variation come from?

Mustafunk:
An average hemp strain takes 7-10 years of breeding in average

( This statement just isnt true. Unless you are only growing outside being forced to produce 1 generation each yr. Indoors many generations can be produced in a single yr.. I have bred and made stable True Breeding lines in far less time then 7-10 yrs... that number only applies to single generation production each year. )

Were they hemp? What variety did you make? Yes hemp takes 7-10 years to bred well. you are not breeding hemp, I doubt you are in fact breeding at all, just pollen chucking, be honest. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I will admit I have not grown your seeds, maybe I should before I speak, but no one is doing it right with Cannabis so I will just speak out not aimed really at you but at the whole industry.


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Actually those first few statements were directly aimed at me.. you doubt me.. you accuse me.. and ask me to fess up. Which were all aimed at my credibility to smear it... Then try to down play it with an admit of not growing my seeds. not very nice if you ask me... Anyway, I [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]admit i mistook when he said HEMP . and it being bred outdoors... I got a bit lost on that.. I meant Cannabis being grown indoors ... can be bred faster due to the multiple generations that can be produced each yr. [/FONT]

They were not hemp and all hemp is bred out doors, except for one I know of, FINOLA, I developed it in my greenhouse, but I did use thousand of plants, every time I grew it.


-SamS

(well I like to think it takes a little bit of skill to make a successful "pollen chuck" sometimes the offspring are not a winner.. Ive made crosses of plants that where amazing by themselves but when put together turned out bad, yes this is even true for making F1s with True Breeding P1 stock.. sometimes the cross is worse then both the parents... Just like 2 beautiful people sometimes have ugly babies LOL things dont always go well together.)


Anyway thats my view on the market and what has changed over the yrs.

SGS
[/FONT]








SGS

 

[GlandualFever]

Just observing from the way side here, and listening to knowledgable folk speak is an education in itself.

I see a problem with the op's question . The idea of stability in a line in my opinion is not the same as a narrow pool of phenotype if that makes sense. I'm sure traditionally all the historic seed companies produced F1 seeds from landrace parents. And I thought that lead to 25% mother leaning, 25% father leaning, and 50% a mix of genes. The results were always stable...how the genes expressed in each sub group gave the phenotypes. That's not instability, it's nature expressing potential.

I can't see how bottle necking genes so that a narrow possibility of expression occurs can be a favourable thing in any way whatsoever.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

F1's can be very consistent if the parents are, They are half from the mom and half from the dad, and if the parents are unrelated the F1's can be extra vigorous. F2s will segregate 1/2/1 like you say, but that is only an approximation, I have seen ones that barely segregate as F2's. And F1's that were not so similar to each other, I suspect that the two parents shared common genes like most modern multi-hybrids, so the F1 is acting a bit like an F2...
-SamS

 

[idiit]

I have seen ones that barely segregate as F2's

sam

sam, I remember iirc you posting about your skunk line almost instantly stabilizing into a homogenous strain. I call this melding in my lay terms. iirc you also posted that this instant stabilizing characteristic of your skunk line was fairly unusual. most hybrid progeny progeny had a tendency to separate as they went into f2, on down the line ( fx's).

^ did I get this correct?

 

[oldchuck]

Another question for Sam and OO: Can today's commercially available Skunk #1 be considered an heirloom cultivar?

 

[Charles-scott]

I am always trying to explain to customers that my IBL offerings are not ideal for terminal production , Many Ibl's will express a real lack of vigor , yet these lines make the best high vigor f-1 hybrids .
The real issue with majority of the seeds being produced by the never ending list of pollen chuckers they are all based on individuals so the highest form of inbreeding occurs , they have no ability to back into early generations they have a isolated clone .
The Majority of the clones come from the same genetics background , What Sam said regarding f-1's if both IBL parents are stable and the 2 strains are unrelated I have witnessed the f-1 generation express clone like seedlings , Even if both contributing parent lines are very inbred the f-1 generation can be very high vigor and consistent .
Charles

Just observing from the way side here, and listening to knowledgable folk speak is an education in itself.

I see a problem with the op's question . The idea of stability in a line in my opinion is not the same as a narrow pool of phenotype if that makes sense. I'm sure traditionally all the historic seed companies produced F1 seeds from landrace parents. And I thought that lead to 25% mother leaning, 25% father leaning, and 50% a mix of genes. The results were always stable...how the genes expressed in each sub group gave the phenotypes. That's not instability, it's nature expressing potential.

I can't see how bottle necking genes so that a narrow possibility of expression occurs can be a favourable thing in any way whatsoever.

 

[bombadil.360]

No, you can't unless the parent lines were already very uniform.
The usefulness of the F1 depends on the genes, not the theory. You're right, the less parents, the worse for breeding.
From what I've seen (and I haven't seen that much, others will be more helpful here), using a few parents is EXACTLY what many breeders do to increase homogeneity of their seeds and keep costs and space low.
But you don't sell those seeds for 50 cents a piece but for $5-20! In other words, these are just the seeds you usually buy. There might be several parents involved but this might be due to necessity if they have to produce more seeds at once. I've read advertisements wherein they brag about using 2 or 3! males and 1 female (or vice versa) for the seeds. Woohoo, ain't that cool! Seriously, I couldn't advertise something like that... silly me, there goes my sideline...

Hello Ornamental

I agree with you up to a point; however, my original query does specify that the parent plants should be proper parental lines such as what we in the vernacular call 'landraces, heirlooms'

that is, if you have selected a great male specimen out of a big population in the 1000s in a field in Morocco, using the seeds they have been making for who knows how long, always in big populations; and cross this specific male to a great female specimen selected out of a field in Nepal, also in the 1000s grown out of seeds made there traditionally in those big populated fields, then your F1 will be pretty good and as stable as it can get using one single dad and one single mom. If you need to make lots of seeds, you use make the two parents into mother plants and take cuttings from these two plants and make as many seeds as you want.

I doubt this is what many seed vendors are doing. Even though, imo, it is the best choice in order to make cheap F1 true hybrid cannabis seeds available to people who just wanna grow sinsemilla and have no interest in making seeds and who don't mind spending a few bucks for seeds so long as they deliver and are not costly.

I think trying to make what it in the vernacular we call 'strains', and keep them through inbreeding and selective breeding is far more complicated.

peace!

 

[CannaBrix]

Maybe I am lost in the conversation....but how about this....

True breeding strains are great for a breeder, but not necessarily great for the mass consumer.

True breeding strains by definition (at least my definition: A plant that gives its most desired traits to its progeny), are great for breeding. But how is this application of any use for the typical commercial grower?

So Sam,

Your Skunk #1.....

Do you think it would've been better as a breeding tool? And you could've released F-1 hybrids rather than the original?

Less the hype of course, and huge boom the variety put on the market, which I am sure was completely transformed.

 

[canned abyss1]

I believe that a true stabilized strain is one that meets a defined set of criteria and its future generations meet that same criteria. By this definition I have bred two varieties that I consider stable.

 

[flipmastermike]

Thanks for all the great replies guys. I can always count on you guys for a great discussion. I agree when you say alot of the new breeders arent breeders at all.they are pollen chuckers. Not to say they dont have good bud. But as much money as they charge for their seeds i think they should actually take the time and try to make them as stable as possible. Crossing two elites and taking the seeds from those is not a new strain its a cross. But so many people cross two strains and now they name it crazy boombastic purple og or whatever lol. Im actually looking to buy some seeds and personally i dont want something to stable cuz i want some variety so i can pick out a mom thats different from what everyone else has. But i hope stable strains arent a thing of the past.Its nice to know some people still know the difference between f1 f2 P1 etc..
Thanks again everyone. And keep growing that fire!!

 

[sweettooth222]

Wonderful

Wonderful

Hello everyone. I was just wondering how many breeders or seedbanks are really producing true stabilized strains? I am no expert but i have crossed several different strains but i have never created a new strain. I believe there is a difference.I think before you give the cross a new name it has to be stabilized first.Anyone agree or disagree? Not saying i dont like variation I love variation thats how we find the elite phenos but imo some of the newer "strains" show way to much variation.
I would love to know what your opinion is on this topic
Also im curious what strain you guys have found to be the most stable?
Thanks

"i have crossed several different strains but i have never created a new strain."

This is exactly what needs to be in the front of every ""Breeder""'s mind

 

[sweettooth222]

@ flipmastermike

great thread i think alike... however.. there have always been folks doing things right while other folks rush things... and there will always be.. so at the end of the day we are all just doing the best we can with the resources that we have at hand ......

take a look at dog breeds for example ..

to create a Dachshund .. you have to mix a pointer ,a pinscher and a type of bloodhound .... but it took hundreds of years for the mix to actually become a distinct breed apart from all the rest ...


so ..in my opinion... you dont have to start with landraces to create something unique .. you just have to put the work into it and do the selective breeding necessary to ensure the desired traits are stable and always there ..however we are talking cultivars and not breeds so it gets way more fun pull out the punnet square lol

imo .. true breeding plants are everywhere these days , most are not landraces and not f1...

so theres a big difference between a hybrid .. and a f1 hybrid and im not saying one is better than the other ..imo they actually kind of complement each other... variety IS the spice of life

I was kind of wondering what plants you had in mind when you said there are a lot of true breeding plants out there?
IMHO I'm looking to put chrome diesel in the garden right now to see how stable it is breeding wise but i don't really know of any true breeding strains

 

[stoned40yrs]

WHERE CAN I GET THIS???!!!

On SB? It's as close to clones as a hick in the sticks who can't get clones can get! How much do I have to pay to tragically fubar cannabis genetics by chucking pollen with that?

I have a couple GSC X GG#4 in veg.

 

[trichrider]

doesn't that completely disregard meiosis?

 

[TanzanianMagic]

Nirvana Master Kush is NL x Skunk#1

Because the NL and SK#1 are both stable strains, it makes for a pretty stable F1. F2's would produce some variation.

There's no "Kush" in it, but it's a potent, easy strain to grow with good yields.

There is Afghani#1 in both though. If that's 'Kush', then yes.

Afghani #1 was used to reduce flowering time of otherwise long flowering sativas. Thai in the case of Northern Lights, and Columbian Gold/'Mexican' (Acapulco Gold/Michoacan) in the case of Skunk#1.

I cringe everyone I hear someone on a discussion program talk about how they have to ban 'the Skunk', a new brand of super potent marijuana, etc.

 

[stix~]

I was kind of wondering what plants you had in mind when you said there are a lot of true breeding plants out there?
IMHO I'm looking to put chrome diesel in the garden right now to see how stable it is breeding wise but i don't really know of any true breeding strains

imo.. most diesels are very dominant for smell and bud looks ... and many afghanis like deep chunck , paonia purple paralizer and purple ghanis will pass on the purple ghani looks ... also there's cali.o wich consistently delivers when it comes to passing that orange flavor .. tw the lemon flavor ,,, and tk breeds true for the bud looks and smells ... and many sativas will provide a lot of structure to crosses ..

////////////


in my case i just like to make seeds and hunt trough them hoping to find a special one or two while preserving seedlines...

are you breeding for something in particular??? ... that would be my question .. are you trying to deliver autoflowerings , preserve seedlines .. cash out on the seedmarket , develop a low odor strain or a high CBD one???

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

x

There is Afghani#1 in both though. If that's 'Kush', then yes.

Afghani #1 was used to reduce flowering time of otherwise long flowering sativas. Thai in the case of Northern Lights, and Columbian Gold/'Mexican' (Acapulco Gold/Michoacan) in the case of Skunk#1.

Skunk#1 has no Afghani #1 in it. The Acapulco Gold was used to speed up the Afghan X Colombian because it was so long flowering.
I did not create NL but as far as I know it has no Afghani #1 in it either, it is nothing like it.
-SamS


I cringe everyone I hear someone on a discussion program talk about how they have to ban 'the Skunk', a new brand of super potent marijuana, etc.

 

[neongreen]

And F1's that were not so similar to each other, I suspect that the two parents shared common genes like most modern multi-hybrids, so the F1 is acting a bit like an F2...
-SamS

Isn't that counter-intuitive though? If the parents have genes in common then you'd expect the offspring to be even more homogenous surely?


In general reply to this thread: I think the cannabis breeding scene would be a lot less "colourful" if it were not for the hacks and pollen chucks out there. All that pollen flying and everything being crossed with everything else means random/fluke gems have more opportunity to be created (eg GG4).

OTOH I do worry that everything is becoming too homogenized, and that we will eventually be left with a bunch of skunk x widow x blueberry x chemo x OG or something like that.

I think there need to be a balance between breeders inbreeding/preserving pure genetics (so there is something for future breeders to work with), and those making hybrids, but I think those making hybrids should be cautious when contemplating using polyhybrids.

As a pollen chucker myself I see no harm in trying random crosses just in case something nice pops out, but my main priority now is to preserve as many of the strains that I have collected as I can. My plan is for open pollination as much as possible to begin with, and then become more selective further down the line.

 

[StankyBeamer]

Isn't that counter-intuitive though? If the parents have genes in common then you'd expect the offspring to be even more homogenous surely?


In general reply to this thread: I think the cannabis breeding scene would be a lot less "colourful" if it were not for the hacks and pollen chucks out there. All that pollen flying and everything being crossed with everything else means random/fluke gems have more opportunity to be created (eg GG4).

OTOH I do worry that everything is becoming too homogenized, and that we will eventually be left with a bunch of skunk x widow x blueberry x chemo x OG or something like that.

I think there need to be a balance between breeders inbreeding/preserving pure genetics (so there is something for future breeders to work with), and those making hybrids, but I think those making hybrids should be cautious when contemplating using polyhybrids.

As a pollen chucker myself I see no harm in trying random crosses just in case something nice pops out, but my main priority now is to preserve as many of the strains that I have collected as I can. My plan is for open pollination as much as possible to begin with, and then become more selective further down the line.

The whole reason f1s are more stable from my understanding is because the parental lines are both stable and unrelated. It has to do with dominance and recessiviveness of the alleles. Two sets of alleles that are extremely different but both stable results in a heterozygous combination of alleles, showing the dominant traits. F2s variation comes from the recombination of recessive alleles, giving diversity to the offspring. I know it seems kind of ass backwards, but when you cross two related specimens, the recessive traits tend to come out more

 

[StankyBeamer]

I've noticed the opposite with polyhybrids, the f1 seems to be heavily varying, where as f2 polys I have made seem to be more stable towards the traits of the specific two phenos you use for mother and pollen donor